Xref: utzoo comp.software-eng:2635 comp.misc:7610
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!ncar!unmvax!bbx!bbxsda!scott
From: scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Coding standards (was Re: Programmer productivity)
Message-ID: <426@bbxsda.UUCP>
Date: 7 Dec 89 18:47:30 GMT
References: <4748ed31.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>
Reply-To: scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker)
Organization: Basis International,  Albuquerque, NM
Lines: 18

In article <4748ed31.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> perry@apollo.HP.COM (Jim Perry) writes:
>On another point, speaking of a.out, it's relatively rare in the world at
>large for compilers to generate *assembly source*; that's another UNIXism.
>(They compile directly to the appropriate machine language -- in a
>relocatable library form, of course).  People on both sides are surprised
>by this, for some reason.  Anyway, I suspect there may be some relation
>between this issue and the object module thing, but I don't know for sure. 

I think it has more to with the fact that an assembler already exists.
why re-invent the wheel?  The code generation phase of a compiler is
much simpler if outputs assembly source resulting in a compiler that
is more portable.

-- 
Scott Amspoker
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM
(505) 345-5232
unmvax.cs.unm.edu!bbx!bbxsda!scott